Supreme Court Expresses Concerns At Indefinite Suspension Of AAP MP Raghav Chadha From Rajya Sabha

While hearing the writ petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Raghav Chadha challenging his suspension from the Rajya Sabha on August 11 during the monsoon session, the Supreme Court expressed grave concern over the indefinite suspension of a Member of Parliament and its impact on the right of the people to be represented.

A bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra orally remarked that the principle of proportionality had to be kept in mind and that exclusion of the voice of an opposition party was a serious matter. The CJI added– "We must be very careful about not excluding those voices from the Parliament."

Chadha was suspended over the allegation that he did not ascertain the willingness of certain members whose names were proposed by him as members of the select committee for the GNCTD (Amendment) Bill 2023. The Rajya Sabha Chairperson suspended Chadha pending the inquiry by the Privileges Committee following a resolution passed by the house.

During the hearing, the bench asked whether the action of Chadha would amount to a breach of Parliamentary privilege. CJI Chandrachud said that as per the rules of the house, the consent of members is necessary at the stage of appointing them as members of a select committee. Pointing out that the only charge against Chadha is that he did not verify the willingness of members before proposing to include them in the select committee, CJI asked if it could be an infraction warranting indefinite suspension. CJI pointed out that a member who disrupts the house is only suspended for the remainder of the session.

"Is this worse than the disruption of proceedings? Is this really on a higher level? A person who disrupts the house is excluded for the rest of the session. In this case alleged infraction is that he didn't verify. Some proportionality is now an invented part of our jurisprudence," CJI said addressing the Attorney General for India R Venkataramani.

CJI also pointed out that Rules 256 and 266 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States do not apply in the present case and asked if the inherent powers can be invoked to suspend a member indefinitely.

"He did not ascertain the willingness ...That's the only charge against him. He was suspended. Indefinitely. Rules 256 and 266 ex facie have no application. We should also apply the principle of proportionality," CJI said. Since there is no outer limit prescribed for the Privileges Committee to conclude its enquiry, would this mean that Chadha remains suspended indefinitely, the CJI asked.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for Chadha, said that the AAP legislator has already apologised for the act and expressed readiness to give a written apology to the Chairperson as well. At the same time, he underscored the need to 'canalise' the powers of privileges of the Parliament so that they are not misused.

"I am making a statement that I respect Rajya Sabha... I have apologised earlier and I'm willing to give a written apology to the Chairperson. But the process being followed is patently illegal and violative of the law and constitution. This is patently violative of fundamental rights and conventions of the past and has dangerous consequences. Whoever is in power, they will choose this path. It is time that the age-old debate shall be decided- whether the privileges...should there be a guideline for it. If the Supreme Court's power of contempt is canalised, why should the Parliament's powers of privileges be not?" Dwivedi submitted.

Dwivedi also said there are at least 11 such incidents that have happened in the Rajya Sabha in the past when members have objected to the inclusion of their names in the select committees proposed by other members. Whenever a member refused consent, he was dropped from the committee and no punitive action was ever taken against the member who proposed the name, the senior counsel stated. He also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly in which the Court set aside the indefinite suspension of MLAs.

When Dwivedi conveyed Chadha's willingness to apologize, the CJI asked the AG if the Rajya Sabha Chairman could revoke the suspension accepting the apology, thereby "obviating" the need for the Supreme Court to lay down the law. However, the AG pointed out that the resolution was passed by the House and the Chairperson was only acting on that.

AG also questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interfere with the exercise of privileges by the House.

"The sole question is whether this court can enter this matter? No. Even with a dispassionate understanding of the case- I've never seen any court to even come close to look into these matters. The house passes a resolution...the house unanimously finds that yes, suspension can be. The Chairperson of the house endorses it. To test the rules of the house on administrative principles would be outside the purview of the court", AG argued.

Dwivedi however pointed out that the Courts have interfered with abuse of legislative privileges and referred to the In Re Keshav Singh(1964) judgment where the warrants issued by the Speaker of UP Assembly against the judges of the Allahabad High Court were stayed.

Reiterating that the House decided to suspend Chadha, AG said that his comments to the press also lowered the dignity of the house. AG took objection to Chadha's remark to the media that his proposals were like a "birthday invitation card". However, the CJI asked :

"Mr AG, does this really reduce the dignity of the house? A member who should have verified the inclusion of members in his committee. He doesn't. He says this is like a birthday invitation card. What he obviously meant was that if you want to come, you come. Does this cause a breach of privilege?... it's about representation of people. We must be very careful about not excluding those voices from the parliament. As a constitutional court, this is a serious cause of concern. The indefinite suspension is a cause of concern," CJI said.

The bench ultimately adjourned the hearing till Friday (November 3) and asked both sides to file a compilation of their submissions by Thursday.

"We may not go into the broader question of privileges. Let's not expand it more than necessary. We're not going in the jurisdiction of privileges committee... the only question is of indefinite suspension," CJI said.

Case Title: Raghav Chadha v. Rajya Sabha Secretariat And Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1155/2023